Tehran’s nuclear ambitions have caused considerable concern. While the U.S. promotes diplomacy and economic sanctions, Israel is considering a pre-emptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The U-T Editorial Board met with Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon to discuss the issue. Here are edited highlights:

Q: What is your government’s latest assessment of the Iranian nuclear weapons potential and what your government might want to do about it?

A: We very much support negotiations with Iran. We would like to see results which would not necessitate any means which are not economic or diplomatic. Having said that, what supersedes this, of course, is not letting Iran become nuclear.

But we do have some concerns. And basically it’s from the way the negotiations started.

To let Iran dictate the venue for instance and also continue to procrastinate … doesn’t bode well to the results.

We do believe that at the end we should see three things happening.

A complete stop of enrichment and related activity that they’re doing.

Secondly, is the removal of all of this material that they have already accumulated, and, thirdly, transparency, that is, robust monitoring mechanism.

Now, the talk about some agreement or compromise is quite disconcerting because what would it mean? That they can enrich to 3½ percent or 5 percent, it’s totally unacceptable.

Q: But if they enriched to a low level like that, wouldn’t that be within the realm of peaceful uses of nuclear power, nuclear energy?

A: Not really.

The 3½ grade that they already have is 70 percent of the effort to weapon grade.

Not only that, if you enrich, the monitoring is much more difficult because if you’re not allowed to enrich and you start enrichment, it is very, very obvious.

If you enrich to 3½ and then you’re increasingly doing more, it’s much harder to monitor.

Q: There are already several dangerous nations in the world that have nuclear weapons. Many, many people, including people in this country, said that it would be unacceptable for North Korea, for example, to get nuclear weapons. They now have them. Why is it absolutely unacceptable for Iran?

A: I think the case of North Korea is a good point.

I’m sure people here regret the fact that there are no more effective actions against North Korea.

But North Korea and Iran are two different cases. North Korea, whether they have the fuel, bombs in the cellar, their motive was to extract economic benefits. They have no global ambitions as Iran does. Iran, today, is the powerhouse behind terror all over the world, not just in the Middle East.

You know they’re undermining the Saudis and in Tunisia and Egypt. Of course in Lebanon, with Hezbollah they pretty much took the country. In the Palestine Authority both with Hamas and now Islamic Jihad, they are the ones behind, backing (Syrian President Bashar) Assad.

They have sleeper cells all over. We have had the wrath of their terror already back in ’92 when they blew up our embassy in Buenos Aires. Then two years later they blew up the Jewish Federation Building.

They tried to kill the Saudi ambassador here and the Saudi ambassador in Egypt. And their ambition comes out of an ideology which is very, very dangerous for hegemony. And now also the fact that they are in a very strategic position that they can control oil flow or the oil prices. If they have this immunity of a nuclear umbrella I think that will devastating.

On top of that, if they do that, this will be the end of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty regime because already the Saudis said if they are nuclear we are going to be nuclear. Egypt said the same. Turkey said the same.

Q: So the question always comes down to what do you do about it?

A: What we can do is just clamp down on them. And I think with these sanctions that we started we have changed the paradigm in the sense that until the sanctions were put in place they put the dilemma on us. What should we do? But once we had a plan through the whole embargo and the banks and insurance, and other things, now the dilemma is theirs because sanctions are very taxing.

I don’t know if you had a chance to see about three or four weeks ago when (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad went to the southern part of Iran. And for the first time local citizens, Iranians, came after his car yelling. “We want food. We want this.” And they were really pouncing. That is something, which later disappeared of course. But it was quite telling. So they are very vulnerable in terms of the economy, the political situations, social situation.

Q: And how much time do you think you have?

A: It’s touch and go because I would say if they are left to their own devices it’s a matter of months.

You see, the main difference or the argument theoretically is what is the goal? Is the goal to prevent a nuclear-capable Iran or a nuclear development or development of a nuclear weapon?

The Iranians are very smart. I believe that there is no formal instruction to have, to build, to assemble a nuclear weapon. But they don’t have to have these instructions. It’s enough that they are within reach. We call it like a screwdriver away, you know, just putting the wires and have the nuclear, so we should prevent them having the capability to assemble in short order, a nuclear weapon.

Q: Israel’s defense minister said that a military strike would not be a simple thing. Talk about that and possible consequences.

A: Some analysts talk about the possibility of, let’s say, (Iran) attacking American troops in the region, attacking Israel either directly or through their surrogates, Hezbollah, Hamas, some jihad and performing some international terrorism as they have tried. They have tried terrorism. If they could they would blow up many embassies today. Fortunately since 1992 until now we have been much better in prevention, pre-emption, intelligence and other means of that makes it very hard for them.

Again it’s not that we should be complacent, but I think that their bark is much harder than the bite except when it comes to terrorism. When it comes to, let’s say, missiles that they can launch at us, their capability is quite limited. Hezbollah and Hamas? I’m not sure anymore that they would really heed to their masters in Tehran because the strategic situation in the region has changed. If Hezbollah is participating or in any kind of a war acts against Israel they risk in a way, elimination. And they do not have Syria to fall back into. Now in 2006 after the second Lebanon War they could restock. With Syria and Iran, they may not be able to do it again, so they would be much more careful and the interests are not identical anymore. The same goes with Hamas or the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. So they may do something as a lip service. But I’m not sure. Also the Iranian themselves, if they, God forbid, attack American troops, they know they are, for sure, going to be eliminated. And they’re much shrewder than that because that would give the United States the real legitimacy to really go all out. When it comes to their own survival, the ayatollahs, they are not irrational.

Q: I’ve seen speculation that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made a commitment to President Obama that Israel would not launch any kind of military strike before the American election in November. Would you comment on that?

A: I think it was excellent that the president said publicly that nuclear Iran is a national threat to the United States and all options are on the table. He also said of course that every country is sovereign to its own decision when it comes to its security and its future.

I can tell you, the only criteria to contemplate such an action would be based on the progress on the ground.

Q: If the situation on the ground in Iran is such that an attack is necessary, there will be an attack?

A: I’m not sure they went into these details, but a decision will be based on the developments on the ground, irrespective of any other considerations, political here, political in Israel, because it’s a matter of life and death.

Q: The president insists that things are just fine with the U.S.-Israeli relations. Do you agree?

A: Absolutely. From everything that I see and I know the relationship is as good as ever and it’s based on a broad spectrum of reasons, whether it’s value and ideals and interests of course. Relations have never been as good in terms of defense, intelligence, economic. We buy more American goods and services than any other country in the Middle East and we are only 8 million people.